Reactionaries around the web are disturbed by revisions to the Education at of Alberta that make it against the law to show “disrespect” for “differences” when educating children–even in private schools or in the home:
“Whatever the nature of schooling – homeschool, private school, Catholic school – we do not tolerate disrespect for differences,” Donna McColl, Lukaszuk’s assistant director of communications, told LifeSiteNews on Wednesday evening.
“You can affirm the family’s ideology in your family life, you just can’t do it as part of your educational study and instruction,” she added.
“Disrespect for differences”–what can this mean? Maybe all those people who think that America should adopt the metric system–surely this is shows damnable zeal for uniformity? Just to be safe, I think the Beach Boys should have to explain precisely what they meant when they said they “wish they all could be California girls”. Limiting ourselves to Canada, perhaps all educational materials should be reviewed to purge that nation’s most prevalent Other-directed hostility, namely contempt and hatred for the United States.
Sorry, I know the whole “playing dumb” act is getting tedious; I think this time around I’m the only one who’s bothered with it. We all know that “disrespect” for these sorts of “differences” is in no danger of being suppressed, just as everyone always knew that English laws against disrespecting religions would never be applied to reign in the rampant anti-Catholicism of the BBC. “Inciting hatred of a religion” is liberals’ way of saying “criticizing Muslims”. Also, remember liberals’ outrage when someone demanded that their own gender antidiscrimination laws be enforced as written? Similarly, when Canadian liberals decide to criminalize disapproval of homosexuality, they invoke a very abstract and neutral-sounding principle as its justification: “we will not tolerate disrespect for differences”. Stated this way, the principle is vague to the point of meaninglessness, rather like the principle that one may not “discriminate”. Theoretically, the two principles contradict each other, since anti-discrimination is itself a hostility toward differences. In practice, any act can be framed as affirming or denying differences of some sort, and it can be framed as discriminating by some quality or not by some other.
Liberals’ vague principles only acquire any sort of meaning when they’re read through the liberal frame of official oppressor groups and victim groups. When they say “we will not tolerate disrespect for differences”, they mean “we will not tolerate members of oppressor groups expressing disrespect or criticism toward members of victim groups”. Therefore, in anything that might be construed in an instructional setting (and soon any interaction between children and adults will be so characterized; note that home environments have already been explicitly included), oppressor adults speaking to their oppressor children may not make any negative statement about victim groups or allude to any standard under which a victim group would come off looking worse than an oppressor group. So, a Christian or morally conservative (but non-Muslim) parent, being officially an oppressor, may not disapprove of homosexuality, since that would mean showing disrespect for the behavior of homosexuals, who are an official victim group. Both sides understand that this is what the law and the principle behind it mean. What’s more, I imagine one can’t be sneaky and, while not directly criticizing homosexuality, teach a “heteronormative” form of sexual morality, one that stresses gender complementarity. After all, if such a moral system is true, it would imply that sodomy is immoral, and the child could infer this on his own. Really, the whole Christian, Muslim, and natural law moral traditions must effectively be proscribed.
There are, I’m sure, other forms of disrespect that Alberta would think it worthwhile to extirpate. Whites having an affection for their race and Christians thinking their religion superior to heathendom are always popular targets. Right now, though, sodomy is the elite’s great cause.
Of course, I disapprove of state persecution of Christianity, but I appreciate that liberals who advocate for it are only following out principles they believe to be just and true. The thing that irritates me to no end is all the dishonesty. Why can’t we just have laws that state plainly what is being outlawed? Why not just have a law saying “Muslims in Great Britain are a privileged class; no criticism of them will be tolerated”? Or a law saying “Alberta is a Sodomitical Republic; all children shall be instructed in the doctrines of androgynism; Christianity may not be taught here in public or private”? I was actually pleased a while back when a university official explicitly said that hate speech protections don’t apply to Christians. The honesty was so very refreshing.